On Apr 10, 9:36 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics,

wrote
on 10 Apr 2007 12:24:22 -0700
.com:

On Apr 8, 2:39 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
So OK then. How does one convert CO2 to O2 in a 9.3 MPa, 860F
environment?

The same exact technical process as for doing Mars, except you don't
have to import a nuclear reactor for accommodating the necessary
process energy, nor having to wait for a year's worth of processing to
take place, and therefore roughly less than 1% the cost and
complications of doing Mars. I can't recall each of the technical
steps in that process of converting co2 back into the raw elements of
co/o2, but it's posted on the internet by the likes of Dr. Zubrin and
several others if we ever need to know such specifics.

Erm, the raw elements of CO2 are C and O2. CO is carbon monoxide.

I do believe CO can be obtained as one of the CO2 process options, and
is actually a perfectly usable rocket fuel, though I'm informed that
it's not terribly thrust efficient nor clean to burn (perhaps worth
more noise than thrust, but human hearing would likely have been
intentionally disabled anyway).

At nearly 100 bar, the human need of O2 isn't going to be 1%, with the
remainder as H2 and we're good to go (actually as little as 0.5% O2
and 99.5% H2 should be doable). Venus has no actual shortage of O2 or
H2, or actually there's no shortage of easily extracting teratonnes
worth h2o from those relatively cool acidic clouds above the S8 layer,
therefore h2o2 seems perfectly doable.


Surviving at VL2's POOF city is offering somewhat tenuous odds, as
rather dependent upon how much shield is accomplishing how much actual
good, and of the naked physical truth of having to avoid whatever is
passing nearby or through your POOF that has your name on it.
Otherwise this POOF city should be nearly as safe as ISS, although
without benefit of a magnetosphere as shield from those waves upon
waves of solar wind that's continually blowing the upper atmospheric
stuff of Venus directly your way, is perhaps a bit more of an unknown.

The lack of magnetosphere shouldn't be a problem, though I'd have to
research the issue; most of the danger comes from the Sun, which is
occluded.

The peak spectrum of available solar energy is actually worth nearly 4
kw/m2, but as you say, most of that potential energy (including the
very worse of halo CMEs) is being nicely isolated and/or diverted by
way of Venus staying in the way.


We can even utilize our gamma and hard-Xray shedding moon itself as a
gravity boosted exit phase in getting to VL2, and upon our return we
should be able once again to utilize that pesky mascon of a moon as
our gravity parking brake.

Only if one want to expose the participants to gamma and hard X rays.

That is true, but we'd likely be going like a freaking bat out of
hell, perhaps trekking out of town at 30+ km/s, which doesn't give our
frail DNA all that much time of gamma and hard Xray TBI exposure to
our naked moon that's so terribly reactive plus being a little extra
radioactive to boot.

In returning from VL2, the gravity braking maneuver(s) of another
close swing or two past our nasty moon would also be accomplished at a
fairly great deal of velocity, therefore once again our frail DNA
shouldn't get traumatised past the point of no return if we're only
talking about adding minutes or perhaps seconds worth of peak exposure
as to whatever cobalt hard or even titanium soft gamma that moon as to
deliver.


Too bad we don't have those station keeping robust habitats at our
moon's L1 for safely accommodating such crew and passengers returning
from whatever other worlds or moons, or better yet of there being
something deep underground upon our salty moon would become nearly the
ideal biological isolation, offering the ultimate solution that's
close enough to home to suit for all but physical contact.

We can put them there, if you like. It's mostly a question of boost.

I would very much like that, especially if this effort can start off
with getting a 10,000 kg package parked into the moon's L1, with more
features and possibly habitat added as time and resources allow (AKA
somewhat Clarke Station).

I agree, in that possibly a boost of using roughly a 120:1 ratio of
rocket per payload should accomplish the deployment task quickly
enough, whereas otherwise if being of a robotic platform of science
instruments, whereas it could be given a lunar month to get there, in
which case perhaps as little as a modern 80:1 ratio of a sufficiently
low inert mass worth of rocket/payload should more than do the trick.

You folks wouldn't happen to have a spare rocket sitting around?
-
Brad Guth